quote:Originally posted by Vanguard: To this day, I've never seen Nemesis. At this point, do you really think I will? Why would I go to a movie that, from everything I've heard and seen about it, is targeted to people that hate Star Trek?
Um, to decide for yourself instead of being swayed by what other people think? It's one thing to have an informed opinion on a subject and quite another to base your opinion on the feelings of others.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Ah, the ever famous "You can't decide if you should spend money to go see this movie unless you go spend money to go see this movie" argument.
Maybe, just maybe, I've seen enough to know that I really don't want to see it at this point? Maybe, just maybe, they've utterly FAILED to sell me a Angsty Trek Babies movie after several other bad flicks?
Is it really so hard to fathom that based on the material presented thus far I absoltely loathe this film?
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
I keep looking at this Enterprise and thinking that if Lindberg or Aurora models were still in business that THIS is what they would have produced as a kit of the Original Enterprise.
Jason would probably know.....bad molding, lots of flash, out of scale, details not matching the real thing etc.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, Vanguard, I think I misread your statement about Nemesis a little. I read it that you were basing it on what other fans were reporting/reviewing.
You're right in the sense that there is/has to be some way for you to reach an informed decision before yous pend money.
Of course, you can watch them online for free (well, Nemesis maybe) so money is obviously not the only deciding factor.
Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Is it really so hard to fathom that based on the material presented thus far I absoltely loathe this film?
If you haven't watched all the ST-movies you suck as a Trekkie! :.)
No but seriously, no amount of discussions, reviews or media distributed "about" a book or movie can substitute actually reading or watching it, and people who haven't done that can't be expected to be taken seriously in any discussion of same. It's a basic, logical fact.
It was long since I heard someone who worked up the energy to "absolutely loathe" a specific Star Trek offering. I mean, don't get me wrong, I think Trek is fun and entertaining and all, but it's still very simplistic and generalized sci-fi, made in a very soft and PG "one-size-fits-all" mold, content-wise.
I could care less about the quality of the drama or acting in the ST-movies (although the first three deliver very well there), nor the stiff and groan-worthy gags (having become a trademark of Trek long time ago). I enjoy it for the practised illusion of seeing actors moving through, and battling with, gigantic make-believe spaceships. It's what drew the audience into TOS in the first place, the immersion. And in that regard, Nemesis delivers. Regarding retcons or contradictions of other ST lore, I don't see any huge loss to the source material, it's kind of dead in the water anyway.
Same with Star Wars or LOTR, I'm just glad they're even bothering.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Amen Brother. I know I talk a bad at times about shows like Enterprise and Voyager, but I still watch them. It's because they're an escape from my mundane and at times unpleasant life. So like I said before, I'll probably go see it and enjoy myself even if it isn't the greatest representation of Star Trek on Earth. It's entertainment, not work.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
But that also says "I'll take anything, no matter how bad it is, so long as it has Star Trek on it." And that's exactly WHY we're getting the crap-on-a-stick that we've been getting over the past decade... because the 'powers that be' KNOW that a handful of fans will take whatever's thrown at them - minimal effort needed.
Sorry, but not this fan. I don't believe in blind brand loyalty. And, after several years of abject failure, I expect them to work their asses off to get me back. If not, well, I have many, many other things I can do with Trek instead.
I actually do miss the days when there really WAS no 'new Trek' on the horizon. That was probably the most rewarding time for creative works from the fans, in particular, during the entire franchise run.
posted
So, now I've got a bit more time, let's discuss.
It looks like the new photo matches the trailer exactly, so that's wishful thinking gone that it might not look so god awful. Oh and it looks like it's built on Earth, and looks a whole lot like the E-refit. Good-o.
As for the report form the Empire blogger, need I mention the spoilers! It is evident from even before the 1st clip that JJA has not an iota of a clue about Trek. But, this is his film, and his take on Trek.
~~~~~~~~~~
The first and second clip seems to be taken straight from the Starfleet Accademy 90210 movie we were all hoping was just a rumour more than a few years back. Young Kirk, full of anger and rebeliousnes, shit, let's just say, it don't sound good.
Next clip: Bones finds a way to smuggle Kirk (still a rebelious git) on to the uglyfied, new and shiney mac powered Enterprise. Chekov is at the helm (wrong), Spock's about and Pike is in command (well, 1 out of 3). Thus ensues a "comedy" scene where the goodies, err.. Kirk, realises they are about to fall into Eric Banna's trap. Dun-dun-duuuuuunnnnn!
Clip three shows us on an icy planet with Kirk marooned by Spock, who's now in charge for some reason (although Pike leaves him in the big chair in the last seen shown, which, just to confuse the slow kids, comes earlier in the film). There he meets Scotty (more comedy apparently), and old Spock, who tells Kirk not to tell Young Spock they are seeing each other - thus completley ruining Star Trek 2. Thanks JJ.
In the last scene Kirk Sulu and Ensign Ricky (here called Olsen) are about to stop those pesky Romulans blowing up some planet (Vulcan so says the reporter) by skydiving onto the big bad plot device/superweapon/planet core drill a la preparation-X from Austin Powers. Pike gives Spock the key for the Enterprise, Spock makes an illogical humans joke, hahaha! The old doctor's dead, so Bones gets the job, and has a tender look at his new sick bay. The three parachuting heroes jump, red shirt gets it, the other two fight a bunch of Romulans (who I hope are wearing some sort of head gear), kill most of them, have a bonding moment (ahhhh), and blow up the big weapon thingy. Eric Banna stays cool, and uses some "red matter" (oh for goodness sake...) to make a black hole in Vulcans core, or something, so it's got to be evacuated (oh no!), and Kirk and Sulu fall of the big thingy (holy cow Batman!), before Chekov (well known for his transporter expertise) beams them out in the nick of time (phew).
~~~~~~~~~~
Well children, doesn't that sound like a steaming pile of soggy poo.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Why would I go to a movie that, from everything I've heard and seen about it, is targeted to people that hate Star Trek?
That's where you're wrong. This new movie isn't targeted to people that hate Star Trek. It's targeted to the average viewing audience, most of whom don't even know what Star Trek is or just have a vague recollection of "that guy with the pointed ears and that spaceship with the saucer and long engines."
That's Abrams' point: He's trying to cater to the average audience in an attempt to get new fans interested in Star Trek. He can't cater just to the fanbase that already exists, because that's only a small percentage of the total moviegoing audience. And let's face it...with the possible exception of yourself, every Trek nerd is going to see this movie anyway, so there's no need to cater to us. In order to get Joe Sixpack to shell out ten bucks to see this movie, he needs to make it worth Joe's while. It's simple economics.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
The fallacy here is thinking that, no matter what you put in the movie, people who don't care about Star Trek are going to start caring about it at this point. It ain't gonna happen.
Frankly, I'm tired of seeing shitfests made out of so many of my favorite universes in the name of making them more relevent or accessible to larger audiences. Planet Of The Apes, James Bond (my blood boils), Star Wars, etc. It happens in the music world all the time too.
The fact is, there is a healthy proportion of the movie-going public that are just morons. It's all a case of lowering things to the least common denominator. Fuck that. If it's something Joeblow Sixpack likes, chances are I won't. And even if he likes it, he probably doesn't care about it anyway.
Personally, I would rather see someone I loved die than see them live brain damaged on a respirator.
That ship is pointless, BTW. A perfect example of messing with something just to mess with it. Do you really think that someone who thinks the TOS design looks silly is going to think that looks any less silly? Really? You must be joking...
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not condoning what Abrams is doing, or trying to stand up for Joe Sixpack Moviegoer. I was simply informing Vanguard that his view was incorrect about the target audience.
And, for a large extent of what you just wrote, Mim, I actually agree with you. But look at it another way. Let's say that because Abrams is catering to the "lowest common denominator," as you say, it causes this movie to make 300 million dollars. That would cause Paramount to green-light more movies, and then possibly a new TV series based on these movies or not. And that's what I'm striving for: a new TV show.
Star Trek IV made a ton of money. Was that due to just the Trekkies who watched it? Doubtful. It was due to the regular moviegoing audience who actually went to see a Star Trek film because they heard good things about it, and that it was actually funny and enjoyable, not because they cared about the intricacies of time travel or how the Bird-of Prey was designed. And guess what happened after that? We got Star Trek: The Next Generation, a new TV show that had nothing to do with the events in The Voyage Home, regardless of whether it was a good movie or not.
See what I'm saying?
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
So, with the focus on the film and apparently on how awful the film and the enterprise is, I was wondering what people are thinking of the shuttle. Now, I know it is very small, but it kind of reminds me of the Argo from Nemesis.
-------------------- "The Starships of the Federation are the physical, tangible manifestations of Humanity´s stubborn insistence that life does indeed mean something." Spock to Leonard McCoy in "Final Frontier"
Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
THOUGHTS...
1. That's fucking ugly. looks more TMP than TOS. In the new state of affairs, will a JJ-TMP look different as well? [-5+]
2. HATE the nacelles (Look mom! I welded HUB CAPS! on the fronts! and then i mounted mud guards! SHINE-y! Must be Piece-of-Shi-it!)[-4]
3. the underside of the primary hull lacks the under-ring dip (hey! they can actually use the space smartly when all the fan-boi fucks think about internal lay-outs.... i.e. a JJ-Saladin COULD be created with little JF-style effort.)[+6]
all said and done, it has elements of almost all the previous Ent's. the only thing i DON'T see is how this design could be drawn from the NX-01 (would help to see the Kelvin fully since they 'claim' it's a class several decades older then JJ-Ent~Nil). Is this design supposed to be what 5 major members of Starfleet could come up with?
*Looks at Trekmovie a few minutes*
one word pops in my head now (WHY?) Perhaps the reason JJ-Ent looks soo different (besides the official shit they say) is financial? royalities and legalities as such (can TOS actors/staff claim any $ from the new film, besides Nimoy, of course?). can anyone? Retcon is here to stay and now we have to try and think how the chicken morphed into the egg...
fuck it. i'm gonna see it regardless...
well, i'll see it... much later, that is (i should be somewhere on Deployment at that time *sigh* )
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Apparently Ryan Church was the designer on this one. He posted this at trekmovie.com:
quote:I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship. To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do. We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary. Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed. The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say.
And the "Rick" he refers to is Rick Sternbach.
Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic